Who "needs" 30 round Magazines?

Looking at the pics coming in from the Boston bomber manhunt I see all these LEOs bristling with high-capacity-mag, “assault weapon” looking rifles (wonder how many are full-auto?), bad-ass shotguns, scary black pistols. For two guys … well, one now. (None now. Good show LEOs.)

Thing is, I don’t begrudge the city of Boston a single round. The LEOs, God bless ‘em, aren’t taking any chances. But then why should you? Why should you be held to 7 rounds? Or 10. Or any arbitrary number. Who needs 30-round mags?

“…legions of heavily armed police” felt like they needed them … for two guys. Then one — one guy.

If precaution advises that many trained officers with all that firepower to prepare to take out two baddies — because who knows how heavily armed they are or what they might do — how can we expect a lone homeowner to defend herself against similar unknown threats with seven rounds? Mayor Bloomberg, Governor O’Malley, et al., please, your thoughts? TTAGers, here’s hoping you never need even one and always have access to a whole lot more.

Well, from what Biden tells us, we only "need" a double barreled shot gun. :)

316SS

April 20, 2013, 03:49 PM

I am no fan of magazine restrictions, but I don't think the Boston example helps the argument for non-LEO defensive situation. It was mentioned in the thread about the officer who carries 147 rounds after almost running dry in a firefight, a defensive shooting scenario should never involve actively pursuing and engaging an adversary. Outside the home, a defensive shooter can and should take any opportunity to disengage and escape.

With respect to proposed mag limits, I think we are better sticking with examples of home defense situations where high round counts were needed to stop a threat.

Edited to add: defensive engagements of multiple aggressive perps are also good examples of why mag limits are bad news.

19-3Ben

April 20, 2013, 03:53 PM

Well, from what Biden tells us, we only "need" a double barreled shot gun.

THAT'S IT!!! The folks of Boston should have just gone out on the balcony and fired two shots!!! The bad guys would have gotten scared and surrendered immediately, thus obviating the need for the manhunt.
That's the Tactical Joe way of handling it!

labhound

April 20, 2013, 04:44 PM

The arguement that when a bad guy is outside my house and the police are shooting hundreds of rounds at him it's okay but if he comes in my house I can only have a magazine holding 10 or 7 rounds to defend my family is total crap!!! :banghead: :cuss:

MDW GUNS

April 20, 2013, 05:09 PM

Ask the Korean if they needed magazines more then 10 (or 7) rounds during the LA riots!
It is simply not up to the government to backdoor regulate the 2A.

Texan Scott

April 20, 2013, 05:23 PM

: points out window at hogs :

jmorris

April 20, 2013, 05:27 PM

If you shot or still in the process of shooting the TX State multigun right now, you would be better off (aka "need") with something bigger than 30 rounds for some stages.

With a bunch of 10 round mags the only benifit would be to retrace your steps back to the starting point and help you loose a bunch of places where you finish.

GBExpat

April 20, 2013, 08:31 PM

Who "needs" 30 round Magazines?
<raising hand>

caribou

April 21, 2013, 05:50 AM

If its a Constitutional Right , no citizen never ever needs to show a 'need' to have it, evoke it, use it......ever.

The Rights exist , that is all the explanation I or you will even need give, as we need not explain any Need of a Right, but only to express our Rights as we desire.

For example;
We have the Right to bear arms. The Miller decision noted that the arms are specificly that used in modern combat (1930 something decision)
A couple years ago the Supream Court reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL Right.

Some express their Rights with high capacity magazines, some write long colums in news papers and internet, some people have meetings with lots of people, and some go to church. No need to explain those.

Remember that criminals have their Rights too, and apon owning an illegal capacity magizine or gun, they have the Right not to incriminate themselfs, so they do not turn in guns, nor ammo nor speak of what they have done. Criminals do not buy guns legally or with background checks, so those will never help either.

Never , ever give up your Constitutional Rights, they are the only Legal protection you will ever have.

Deaf Smith

April 21, 2013, 10:09 PM

One 'needs' 30 round mags if the other guy has them. Now if the good civilians have to fight the bad narco-terrorist or rouge government that DOES have 30 round mags well then they do NEED them.

See that is the point. The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting or even really self defense. It's to keep the government to be really 'by the people, for the people" and not for some despot or terrorist organization.

Deaf

StewNTexas

April 22, 2013, 04:12 PM

While I do not really 'need' an AR at this time, I will probably buy one when the prices stabalize a bit more.

BUT, I want one.

Do you suppose Rosa Parks really 'needed' to sit in the front of the bus? Probably not, she she 'wanted' to, and now the world is a better place because of it.

wally

April 22, 2013, 04:21 PM

Who "needs" a Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, or Cadillac?

We don't buy fire extinguishers and fire insurance because we are expecting a fire, but like with guns, its way better to have them and not ever need them that to need them and not have them!

At least we can get some recreational usage from our guns.

Steel Horse Rider

April 23, 2013, 10:42 AM

I think Waco is a good indicator of why you cannot have enough ammo or magazine capacity. Anyone who says we have nothing to fear from the government had better not have any practices that can be construed as "strange" or "abnormal". Diversity and tolerance do not extend to those who refuse to kneel at the altar of government directives.

Romeo 33 Delta

April 23, 2013, 12:31 PM

Combat experience dictates that you can never have enough ammo in a firefight. I never met an Infantry Combat vet who ever complained of having carried too much ammo after one either.

Who needs a 30-round magazine? Who needs a fire extinguisher? What REALLY are the odds that you house will catch fire? Who needs home owner's insurance for that matter?

My motto: "Having one more magazine full than it takes to get the job done!"

DeathByCactus

April 23, 2013, 02:03 PM

I don't.

You won't win a war against the government. Dialogue is the only way. We are home to the worlds premier fighting force. The most combat experienced infantry (and probably police given the amount of vets who are now cops) in the world at this point. The best air superiority and drone fleet also. The police wouldn't need to be so heavily armed if there wasn't an arms race going on with the people.

I own like some... 60+ 30 round mags. Gonna be selling all of them. Same with my rifle so I am not being a hypocrite on this. Civil war is NOT the answer to any of our problems.

Start telling all these combat vets coming back from the war to leave their military ways at the door step of the police departments they join. That will help for one. Start helping to calm Americans on both sides of the debate down to help remove all of these radical views (on both sides) and we might start seeing normal cops again.

bigdaa

April 23, 2013, 02:36 PM

I need thirty round magazines and more to level the field against tyranny in the United States of America.

JustinJ

April 23, 2013, 02:38 PM

I'm not in favor of instituting magazine capacity limits but arguing that we need them because police needed them to track and apprehend two astranomically rare suspect types is absurd. This line of reasoning will convince nobody and rather convince them that one is delusional. Do you seriously not see the difference between home defense and trying to apprehend extremely violent terrorists? Should home owners wear full SWAT gear, have flash bangs and bomb disposal robots as well? Criminals who break into homes, by their nature, avoid contact and attention at all costs and hanging around to engage in prolonged gun fights with home owners is incredibly rare. In the overwhelming majority of accounts i've read bad guys flee at the first sight or sound of a gun. Those that do return fire almost always do so in an attempt to escape. There does seem to be a slightly higher incidence of gun fights with criminals targeting businesses with large amounts of cash on hand or valuable products such as jewelry. However many rounds are adequate for home defense, it has nothing to do with what was used in apprehending/killing the marathon terrorists.

rdhood

April 23, 2013, 02:44 PM

The OP is right. If LE needs semi and full automatic ARs with 30 round magazines to take down one terrorist hiding in the boat in the backyard of a citizen, why the heck shouldn't that same citizen have those same guns?

If LE needs them against the bad guys, then so do law abiding citizens. PERIOD. Otherwise, the only group off individuals who will be out gunned will be the law abiding citizens.

Friendly, Don't Fire!

April 23, 2013, 03:13 PM

I have a 15# Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher in my garage entrance. Why do I have such a large extinguisher when I could have one of those little First-Alert hand-held units worth a fraction of what I spent on the large one.

I'm not planning on having a fire in my garage, I'm not planning on any of my vehicles burning. HOWEVER, in the event that I might need to use that fire-extinguisher, to me, bigger is better! I could have a pea-shooter extinguisher that does about nothing to the fire or I could have one that puts it out and still has lots left.

Suppose several crazed thugs break down your front door and come in with guns blazing. Anyone who would think that five to ten rounds is the maximum the honest, law-abiding citizen should have can limit their guns all they want. I would like to be able to have enough shots to shoot until the threat stops, NOT shoot until my magazine is empty! Ask any armed-robber how many rounds the law-abiding citizen should be carrying and he will tell you "NONE!"

Same variables avg joe has to deal with when he hears the window break.

JTHunter

April 23, 2013, 04:11 PM

I don't need 30-rounders; I have 40-rounders - 4 of them - and 2 - 75-rd. drums for my AK.
:D

Bobson

April 23, 2013, 04:16 PM

I don't.

You won't win a war against the government. Dialogue is the only way. We are home to the worlds premier fighting force. The most combat experienced infantry (and probably police given the amount of vets who are now cops) in the world at this point. The best air superiority and drone fleet also. The police wouldn't need to be so heavily armed if there wasn't an arms race going on with the people.

I own like some... 60+ 30 round mags. Gonna be selling all of them. Same with my rifle so I am not being a hypocrite on this. Civil war is NOT the answer to any of our problems.

Start telling all these combat vets coming back from the war to leave their military ways at the door step of the police departments they join. That will help for one. Start helping to calm Americans on both sides of the debate down to help remove all of these radical views (on both sides) and we might start seeing normal cops again.
We need to get rid of radical views on both side? Yours is the most radical view I've heard in my entire life. You just gave step-by-step instructions for anyone interested in being enslaved.

76shuvlinoff

April 23, 2013, 09:34 PM

We are home to the worlds premier fighting force. The most combat experienced infantry.....

That punched guys in robes and sandals with AKs in the face for 11 years and headed home. Robes and Sandals are still there. How many did we lose? For what? We took out the bastard that leveled the World trade Center and killed 3K but his minions will continue to flourish.

Nothing against the soldiers, God love em. Loath the politics.

DeathByCactus

April 24, 2013, 11:58 AM

We need to get rid of radical views on both side? Yours is the most radical view I've heard in my entire life. You just gave step-by-step instructions for anyone interested in being enslaved.

If you really want to see slavery, think about what losing a civil war would be like and thus losing the second amendment entirely. Dialogue and rational action is what secures victory in today's world. Civil war is the most radical and irrational view I think there is. But hey, if you want to bury your kids (as they will be the ones fighting), I guess that's your call.

That punched guys in robes and sandals with AKs in the face for 11 years and headed home. Robes and Sandals are still there. How many did we lose? For what? We took out the bastard that leveled the World trade Center and killed 3K but his minions will continue to flourish.

Nothing against the soldiers, God love em. Loath the politics.

Agree. Dialogue and patience, not war will improve multi-cultural relations. War just breeds more hate and suffering on both sides. Eye for an eye forever? Not a path worth taking. This can be done without giving up our way of life. That is the same view I hold for the OP.

Sam Cade

April 24, 2013, 12:27 PM

War just breeds more hate and suffering on both sides.

Winning a war, on the other hand, can bring both peace and prosperity.

Sometimes even for the losers.

germany

japan

JustinJ

April 24, 2013, 01:14 PM

Suppose several crazed thugs break down your front door and come in with guns blazing. Anyone who would think that five to ten rounds is the maximum the honest, law-abiding citizen should have can limit their guns all they want.

Suppose aliens invade and smoking crack is the only way to resist their mind control abilities. Do you keep a loaded pipe at the ready just in case? Unless you are the head of a drug cartel the chances of crazed thugs busting in your door, guns blazing, is so astranomically low it is absurd to even consider.

And unless your AR15 is permamently attached to you at all times you can have a 500 round magazine, it wouldn't do much good if these imaginary bad guys bust in with guns blazing.

Bobson

April 24, 2013, 02:52 PM

If you really want to see slavery, think about what losing a civil war would be like and thus losing the second amendment entirely.
If it ever gets to that point, I think it will be because we're about to lose the second amendment entirely. In other words, a civil war would be a last ditch effort to avoid slavery. Thus, if we fight and lose, it's over. If we don't fight at all... it's still over. In that scenario, wouldn't you rather take your chances fighting? Or is dialogue the better option?

Nobody's suggesting a civil war might be fought over our loss of the food pyramid.

Steel Horse Rider

April 24, 2013, 04:29 PM

My nephew who spent 8 years in close quarters contact with the jihadists in both Afghanistan and Iraq would tell you that there are things worse than death.

RetiredUSNChief

April 24, 2013, 04:45 PM

I have a 15# Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher in my garage entrance. Why do I have such a large extinguisher when I could have one of those little First-Alert hand-held units worth a fraction of what I spent on the large one.

By the standards of many liberals on gun control, you are a fool for having a fire extinguisher in the first place, regardless of the size.

I mean, really...we have fire departments for crying out loud! All you need to do is call the fire department and they'll come right out and fight that fire for you! No need to carry around dangerous containers full of highly pressurized chemicals.

Sheesh, man! Get your head on straight before you kill someone with that extinguisher!

:rolleyes:

RetiredUSNChief

April 24, 2013, 05:14 PM

Other than food, shelter, and clothing, who really needs anything?

That's a stupid argument, easily turned around on anybody who tries to use it.

Who needs a vehicle, when there is public transportation?

Who needs a choice in the cut of beef they want to eat, when any cut of beef provides essentally the same nutritional value?

Who needs a four bedroom house so long as there is enough floor space to sleep everybody in the family?

Who needs an entire tub full of water when all they require is a single small bucket to bathe themselves clean?

Who needs anything more than water to drink, ever?

The point isn't whether or not a person actually "needs" a 30 round magazine...it's whether or not the government (you know...that "by the people, for the people" entity) can require you to justify such a "need".

For every argument the government can come up with why a person DOESN'T "need" a 30 round magazine, you or I could easily come up with an argument why a person WOULD "need" to have it. But as soon as we allow the government to say we must justify the need, then our arguments become null and void, whatever they may be.

yzguy87

April 24, 2013, 05:44 PM

"Who "needs" 30 round Magazines?"
I do. I only need one round for hunting and maybe only 2-3 per home invader but I'll use the rest of the mag to fend off rights grabbers that try to take away my property. Last I checked it was called the Bill of Rights NOT the Bill of Privilages.

CoRoMo

April 24, 2013, 06:02 PM

You won't win a war against the government.
Winning a war against the government is not the goal.
“This is all about the people’s ability to defend against tyranny. When the government knows that they have an armed populous and there would have to be some sort of bloodshed as opposed to just a pen to do their dirty work. The ability to win against a tyrannical government is not the goal. You don’t need to win against the American military; you just need to let the government know that we are armed and that there would be a grave problem for them.” Anthony Cumia

Bovice

April 24, 2013, 06:11 PM

While I do not really 'need' an AR at this time, I will probably buy one when the prices stabalize a bit more.

BUT, I want one.

Do you suppose Rosa Parks really 'needed' to sit in the front of the bus? Probably not, she she 'wanted' to, and now the world is a better place because of it.
That's debatable. The "civil rights" campaign has yet to end, despite agreeing to measures for equality. A good number of folks won't let it go and we are all still suffering.

The gun bills keep dying. The word is out, if they vote for it, they aren't getting reelected.

evan price

April 24, 2013, 06:21 PM

Who needs a street legal car with over 400 horsepower and/or a top speed over 85 mph?

Well Now

April 24, 2013, 06:30 PM

If the elected officials follow the oath they took for office "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States" like they should, we wouldn't have to debate the nonsense of mag capacities.

j1

April 24, 2013, 06:33 PM

It was thought for a while that the second bomber was wearing a suicide vest. How would YOU control a suspect who might be wearing a suicide vest? I would handle him with extreme care to protect my own life and safety. Bombers safety counts for little mine counts a whole lot.

Akita1

April 24, 2013, 07:13 PM

Raising both hands, and both feet, and…you get the idea.

Skillet

April 24, 2013, 08:21 PM

I argue with plenty of people on this issue, being a member of the armed forces, you get plenty of people from all over the country with all sorts of backgrounds. Many people, people who even shoot guns themselves, will ask why we need 30 round magazines. I try to explain, but they go on like they know what would happen if scenario A vs scenario B were to play out. they act as if they know what crime would be like (even if they don't know what current crime rates are) and they act like the know what would happen if the government were to ban guns all together, that the average Joe with an AR or an AK w/ a 30 rd mag doesn't stand a chance against the military (who wouldn't fight against their own families anyhow) with 50 cals, and much more. The ignorance of the "Why do we need ___" is just astounding.

Piratesailor

April 24, 2013, 09:20 PM

It's my right. There is no "need" about it. That's playing into the liberal fascist mantra.

Piratesailor

April 24, 2013, 09:24 PM

Skillet.. That's what was said at Concord and Lexington.

True, the military is mighty.. But not against their own citizens. If that were to happen, we'll have larger problems and the military would most likely be in the patriots side.